Reporter From Time Is Held in Contempt in C.I.A. Leak Case

[dissention]

Originally Posted by CarneVaca

Hard to say. If he goes to prison, that is one honorable thing he does.

More like saving his own ass. If he gives it up, he's toast.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by CarneVaca

In that case, I'd agree with you. But in most cases I would have to disagree. Besides, the chance of a killer confessing to a reporter in a not-for-attribution interview is slim, and the chance of a reporter actually going to print with something like that is even slimmer.

Touche' (I gotta make an icon for that )

But, it does happen not often, but it does, usually in the context of bragging to a reporter in a phone call saying "I'll give you the exclusive if you agree not to identifiy me and tell the world I under my pseudonym (like the Boston Strangler) killed such and such - make me glorious in your paper." Sad and sick, but true. It also more frequently occurs with mob trials in that a witness tells thge reporter something and asks not to be names. The prosecutor reads it and is like ???????? so, they subpoena the reporter to the grand jury. But, I agree these are VERY limited occurances even though they certainly occur.

[dissention]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

Touche' (I gotta make an icon for that )

Speaking of icons, I found these earlier and thought they were great:

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by dissention

Speaking of icons, I found these earlier and thought they were great:

if not disturbing

[dissention]

http://www.mediainfo.com/eandp/news/..._id=1000604122

Plame Leak Case Could End in Supreme Court Standoff
Lucy Dalglish: "I think we are headed for a showdown."

By Joe Strupp

Published: August 10, 2004 12:21 PM EST

NEW YORK The recent pressure on reporters to reveal sources in the Valerie Plame investigation could end in a U.S Supreme Court standoff, according to two leading First Amendment attorneys, one of whom fears several leading Washington reporters could wind up in jail before it's over.

"I think we are headed for a showdown and it would not surprise me in the least to see half a dozen reporters sitting in a jail in D.C.," said Lucy Dalglish, executive director of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, which monitors such cases. She believes Time magazine and other media outlets "will be willing to take this all the way to the Supreme Court because the atmosphere here has become so difficult for journalists to promise confidentiality that the stakes are too high."

Sandra Baron, executive director of the Media Law Resource Center, agreed. "Eventually it will go to the Supreme Court," she said. "I'm not sure if a lot of people want to see that because there is always the danger that the Supreme Court will take a strong stand against the press on this issue."

Dalglish's and Baron's comments followed word Monday that Time reporter Matthew Cooper had been held in contempt of court for failing to reveal sources who disclosed that Plame was an undercover CIA officer. In addition, Walter Pincus, a reporter for The Washington Post, received a subpoena Monday ordering him to testify in the investigation, which is being directed by special prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald. Other newspaper reporters are expected to receive subpoenas soon.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2004Aug10.html

Ruling Offers Window Into Plame Investigation

By Dan Froomkin
Special to washingtonpost.com
Tuesday, August 10, 2004; 11:39 AM

Sure the newly unsealed order by a federal judge in the Valerie Plame case sets up what could be the greatest First Amendment clash in decades -- but it also contains some very intriguing clues about the hugely secretive investigation into the leak of Plame's identity as a CIA operative.

And it does appear that special prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald is asking a lot of questions about Vice President Cheney's chief of staff, Lewis I. "Scooter" Libby.

U.S. District Chief Judge Thomas F. Hogan's ruled Time magazine reporter Matt Cooper in contempt of court for refusing to testify in front of the grand jury investigating the case.

The ruling contains a "background" section that provides a rare -- if still fragmented -- view into the investigation.

[gldstwmn]

Originally Posted by dissention

http://www.mediainfo.com/eandp/news/..._id=1000604122

Plame Leak Case Could End in Supreme Court Standoff
Lucy Dalglish: "I think we are headed for a showdown."

By Joe Strupp

Published: August 10, 2004 12:21 PM EST

NEW YORK The recent pressure on reporters to reveal sources in the Valerie Plame investigation could end in a U.S Supreme Court standoff, according to two leading First Amendment attorneys, one of whom fears several leading Washington reporters could wind up in jail before it's over.

From the WaPo article that I posted earlier:

Media lawyers involved in the case have sought to avoid a showdown in the court of appeals because their chances of winning appear remote. Citing a 1972 Supreme Court case, Branzberg v. Hayes, Hogan wrote in his opinion that the high court has found that "there is no First Amendment privilege exempting members of the press from appearing before grand juries upon issuance of a valid subpoena."
So, I don't think so Lucy.

[strandinthewind]

I know its an old thread, but this is a continuation of it:

New York Times reporter held in contempt
From Terry Frieden
CNN Washington Bureau

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A federal judge Thursday declared New York Times reporter Judith Miller in civil contempt for her refusal to testify before a grand jury, but agreed not to jail her pending an appeal.

Miller had been subpoenaed to testify as part of the Justice Department investigation into who leaked CIA operative Valerie Plame's name to syndicated columnist and CNN contributor Robert Novak last year.

With renowned First Amendment attorney Floyd Abrams at her side, Miller said she refused to divulge any off-the-record information and confidential discussions with her sources in order to protect their identity.

U.S. District Judge Thomas Hogan said he understood her position, but rejected her argument.

"We have a classic confrontation between the freedom of the press and the right of the government to investigate criminal activity before a grand jury," Hogan said.

He said he had read a detailed summary of the status of the prosecutor's investigation, and is satisfied the government "is not on a fishing expedition."

The judge said both the government and Miller had acted in good faith, and were appropriately doing their respective jobs, but the law is on the government's side.

He then declared Miller in contempt, ordered her confined in a suitable place for a period not to exceed 18 months. She was released on a personal recognizance bond, pending an appeal.

Afterward Miller described the ruling as "really frightening."

"I'm disappointed that I am being held in contempt of court for an article I never wrote," she said. Miller stressed she was only gathering information from sources for a possible story.

The government declined to comment.

Both sides agreed to seek an expedited appeal and complete filing their cases by November 10.

Hogan agreed with Assistant U.S. Attorney James Fleischner that a fine would not be sufficient to compel Miller's testimony. No fine was imposed along with the planned incarceration.

Fleischner was representing the government in the absence of Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald who was appointed by the Justice Department to get to the bottom of the leak.

Fitzgerald has subpoenaed several reporters as part of his probe.

Time Magazine and one of its reporters, Matthew Cooper, also were held in contempt, but Cooper then reached an agreement under which he gave an interview to Fitzgerald leading to the citation being dropped.

Last month Cooper was subpoenaed again and was asked for additional information. Hogan has refused to quash that subpoena, and a new contempt hearing for Cooper is scheduled for next week.

Abrams noted the government's continued interest in forcing Cooper to testify, and said it was proof Miller should not agree to testify under a government promise of limited questioning.

Find this article at:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/10/07/mi...mpt/index.html

[gldstwmn]

This is the same reporter who admittedly exagerrated the government's WMD claims prior to the war.
What comes around goes around, Judy.

[dissention]

Originally Posted by gldstwmn

This is the same reporter who admittedly exagerrated the government's WMD claims prior to the war.
What comes around goes around, Judy.

She's a total whore. She gladly did the dirty work for the admin.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by dissention

She's a total whore. She gladly did the dirty work for the admin.

and here is the NY Times' response

October 10, 2004
The Promise of the First Amendment
By ARTHUR OCHS SULZBERGER JR., chairman and publisher, and RUSSELL T. LEWIS, chief executive, The New York Times

ast Thursday, a federal district judge ordered a New York Times reporter, Judy Miller, sent to prison. Her crime was doing her job as the founders of this nation intended. Here's what happened and why it should concern you.

On July 6, 2003, Joseph C. Wilson IV - formerly a career foreign service officer, a chargé d'affaires in Baghdad and an ambassador - wrote an article published on this page under the headline, "What I Didn't Find in Africa." The article served to undercut the Bush administration's claims surrounding Saddam Hussein's nuclear capacity.

Eight days later, Robert Novak, a syndicated columnist, wrote an article in which he identified Ambassador Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, as an "operative on weapons of mass destruction" for the C.I.A. "Two senior administration officials told me," Mr. Novak wrote, that it was Ms. Plame who "suggested sending Wilson" to investigate claims that Iraq had tried to purchase uranium ore from Niger. After Mr. Novak's report, several other journalists wrote stories in which they said they received similar information about Ms. Plame from confidential government sources, in what many have concluded was an effort to punish Mr. Wilson for speaking out against the administration by exposing his wife as a C.I.A. operative. The record is clear, however, that Judy Miller is not one of those journalists who reported this information.

Because the government officials who revealed Valerie Plame's status as a C.I.A. operative to the press might have committed a crime in doing so, the Justice Department opened a federal criminal investigation to find whoever was responsible.

During the course of this investigation, the details of which have been kept secret, several journalists have been subpoenaed to provide information about the source of the leak and threatened with jail if they failed to comply.

On Aug. 12, Ms. Miller received a subpoena in which she was required to provide information about conversations she might have had with a government official in which the identity and C.I.A. connection of Mr. Wilson's wife might have been mentioned. She received this subpoena even though she had never published anything concerning Mr. Wilson or his wife. This is not the only recent case in which the government has subpoenaed information concerning Ms. Miller's sources. On July 12, the same prosecutor sought to have Ms. Miller and another Times correspondent, Philip Shenon, identify another source. Curiously, this separate investigation concerns articles on Islamic charities and their possible financial support for terrorism that were published nearly three years ago. As part of this effort to uncover the reporters' confidential sources, the prosecutor has gone to the phone company to obtain records of their phone calls.

So, unless an appeals court reverses last week's contempt conviction, Judy Miller will soon be sent to prison. And, if the government succeeds in obtaining the phone records of Ms. Miller and Mr. Shenon, many of their sources - even those having nothing to do with these two government investigations - will become known.

Why does all of this matter? The possibility of being forced to leave one's family and sent to jail simply for doing your job is an appalling prospect for any journalist - indeed, any citizen. But as concerned as we are with our colleague's loss of liberty, there are even bigger issues at stake for us all.

The press simply cannot perform its intended role if its sources of information - particularly information about the government - are cut off. Yes, the press is far from perfect. We are human and make mistakes. But, the authors of our Constitution and its First Amendment understood all of that and for good reason prescribed that journalists should function as a "fourth estate." As Justice Potter Stewart put it, the primary purpose of the constitutional guarantee of a free press was "to create a fourth institution outside the government as an additional check on the three official branches."

The founders of our democracy understood that our government was also a human institution that was capable of mistakes and misdeeds. That is why they constructed a First Amendment that would give the press the ability to investigate problems in the official branches of our government and make them known to the public. In this way, the press was sensibly put in a position to help hold government accountable to its citizens.

An essential tool that the press must have if it is to perform its job is the ability to gather and receive information in confidence from those who would face reprisals for bringing important information about our government into the light of day for all of us to examine. Without an enforceable promise of confidentiality, sources would quickly dry up and the press would be left largely with only official government pronouncements to report.

A quarter of a century ago, a New York Times reporter, Myron Farber, was ordered to jail, also for doing his job and refusing to give up confidential information. He served 40 days in a New Jersey prison cell. In response to this injustice, the New Jersey Legislature strengthened its "shield law," which recognizes and serves to protect a journalist's need to protect sources and information. Although the federal government has no shield law, the vast majority of states, as well as the District of Columbia, have by now put in place legal protections for reporters. While many of these laws are regarded as providing an "absolute privilege" for journalists, others set out a strict test that the government must meet before it can have a reporter thrown into jail. Perhaps it is a function of the age we live in or perhaps it is something more insidious, but the incidence of reporters being threatened with jail by the federal government is on the rise.

To reverse this trend, to give meaning to the guarantees of the First Amendment and to thereby strengthen our democracy, it is now time for Congress to follow the lead of the states and enact a federal shield law for journalists. Without one, reporters like Judy Miller may be imprisoned. More important, the public will be in the dark about the actions of its elected and appointed government officials. That is not what our nation's founders had in mind.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/10/op...rint&position=

[gldstwmn]

http://www.thekcrachannel.com/news/3819788/detail.html

Another Reporter Ordered To Jail In CIA Leak Case
Journalists Expected To File Joint Appeal

POSTED: 5:53 pm EDT October 13, 2004
UPDATED: 6:12 pm EDT October 13, 2004

WASHINGTON -- A federal judge has ordered Time magazine White House correspondent Matthew Cooper to jail for 18 months for refusing to reveal sources to a grand jury that is probing the leak of an undercover Central Intelligence Agency officer's identity.

Judge Thomas Hogan then suspended the jail time for contempt of court pending an appeal.

Hogan's actions are nearly identical to those he took last week against New York Times reporter Judith Miller.

The journalists are expected to file a joint appeal on First Amendment grounds.

Judge Hogan said reporters must testify to grand juries unless they can show prosecutorial harassment or bad faith.

"No reporter in the United States should have to go to jail for simply doing their job," Cooper said in response.